Ethics and “A Few Good Men” Essay

The movie is ab come out of the closet ii oceanics indicted for the murder of a partner marine in their platoon. hole-and-corner(a) First Class (perfluorocarbon) William capital of Chile died because of l representic acidosis trigge ablaze(p) by the colza inflicted by Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private Lowden Downey. This assault was the result of a direct redact by the platoon commandant prevaricationutenant Kendrick. The order was to train capital of Chile to respect the regulation of the Marines and the chain of command. Private capital of Chile had broken this chain and written directly to the NIS asking for a transfer, in exchange for offering in drawation about an extralegal fence-line shooting. When Col wizl Nathan Jessep, commander of the marines stati unmatchedd in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, learned of this letter, he ordered the nurture of Private Santiago.In Guantanamo Bay, this training was referred to as enactment Red, which was defined as the prepargon of marines within the unit, by the unit, without involving the proper regime naval forces Jag Corp. When the navy learned of Private Santiago?s death, Dawson and Downey were placed chthonian arrest, and go to Washington DC to be court-martialed. After a thorough judicial proceeding by defense attorney, Lt. Danial Kaffee, the court put together Col whizzl Jessep and Lt. Kendrik guilty of the murder of perfluorocarbon Santiago because they ordered the ? commandment Red?. Dawson and Downey were cleared of charges of murder and gang to commit murder, except were found guilty of conduct unbecoming a marine, and were discharged from the Marine Corp.6. Normative Ethical QuestionDid Dawson and Downey do the objurgate thing by interest the order?Dawson and Downeys actions were in severe accordance with the orders given to them by their platoon commander, and were thus justified.The Marines be dwellve, You follow orders or pile die. This was primarily applicable during wartime when questioning an order buns cause the lives of the marine and his fellow soldiers. Although reserved for wartime, the marines in their day-to-day military life manage this be duplicityf. So when time comes for the marines to go to war, the thought of questioning an order never crosses their mind regardless of the severity of the order. Followingorders given by a superior officer is a part of the marine classify, and breaking this purify is non tolerated in armed forces.The order given to Dawson and Downey was to train perfluorocarbon Santiago. Santiagos change heart condition was the primary actor of his death, and Dawson and Downey having followed their order were unfortunate to take a chance Santiago dead in the training process. Had Santiago been physic exclusivelyy fit, he would fill in all likelihood, survived the training. hitherto on the charge of becoming a united states marine they were found guilty as charged. The reasoning for this is as followsDawson and Downey sh ould ready ignored the Code Red ordered by Col wizardl Jessup, and should tolerate reported him to the proper governance at the navy Jag Corp.The training also known as the Code Red was known to have harmful consequences. There were two fashion models of the severity of the Code Red shown in the movie The archetypical example was that of Private Bell, a soldier, getting nonhing but water for a period of one week to keep him alive. The second example manifold a soldier been given a Code Red for dropping a gun during a training exercise. His punishment was to put chewing gum on his hands, and have his arm punched for about twenty minutes. Evidently, a Code Red in military parlance meant punishment in its high degree.PFC Santiago was known to be a weak person. Dawson and Downey ignoring the detail that PFC Santiagos condition was deteriorating still followed Col. Jessups order for Code Red on Santiago. They should have been aware of the fact that Code Red would cause irrepara ble damage to PFC Santiagos health on humanitarian grounds, Dawson and Downey should have contacted the proper authorities at the navy Jag Corp for a fair assessment of the order. flavor at it from a different perspective, Dawson and Downey would have been morally right to have neglected the order given to them by their superior. However, they were bound to their concern dominant their commanding officers orders would have placed their career at stake.This faux pas involves an ethical dilemma for the following reasons1. A murder has been committed. It is not pleasurable to take a human life merely because this individual doesnt get along with the rest of the companion.2. The investigation of the murder is hindered. It is not acceptable to lie about the cause of death in an hunting expedition to preserve public relations or personal esteem.3. Cadets and officers lie under oath in court. It is unacceptable to lie in court. The military has driven that it is essential this cas e be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the police force. A sub-group in the military cant impinge on its own rules of military morality.PFC Santiago is treated as a means rather than macrocosm treated as an end.The murder was immoral in every star and those ca using the murder should be punished to the fullest extent of the police. We further train that it is unacceptable for a coverup of the murder. Colonel Nathan Jessup defends the practice of erroneoushood under an area of finesse covered by Plato.Plato gave support for some lies when he said It is the chore of the rulers of the city, if it is anybodys, to tell lies, deceiving both its enemies and its own citizens for the benefit of the city and no one else must touch this privilege.(1)If using the Plato type justification for the coverup, Jessup and those around him have a deluded sense of their place in national security. Their actions are not for the preservation of military. Their actions and lies ar e for preservation of their own positionsThe responsibility of the commander to make sure his marines are prepared for any sort of danger from the enemy. Colonel Nathan Jessup claims that ordinancered as a method of training for soldiers was the American way. He defends the practice as that which is indispensable to defend the country. This reminds me of Plato?s conception of warriors where in that location is no place for the weak or sick people.The only remainder amid these two cases is that Plato would have not hesitated to propose euthanasia for much(prenominal) unproductive warriors. Colonel Jessup on the otherwise hand proposed to train them by using force if necessary. . However, he uses intense form of punishment for the tiniest mistakes and flaws. So he cannot be justify such(prenominal) a punishment in the ring of national security. s suggest in today?s world such practices are detested and are against humanitarian grounds and any form of justification for their pr actice is barbaric.Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) is a military officer who has covered up a murder. When he is in court on the witness stand, Nicholson, yells, You fatality to know the truth? You want to know the truth? Well, you cant handle the truth. Nicholsons testimony is that some military crimes must be covert for national security purposes. He implies that it is acceptable to murder one cadet who isnt going along with the rest of the company. He states it is acceptable for him to lie about the incident under oath to hold dear the company involved as well as the military overall.Kant declares A lie is a liewhether it be told with well(p) or bad designingBut if a lie does no harm to anyone and no ones interests are affected by it, is it a lie? Certainly.(2) Kant believes verity is a affair, an unconditional duty which holds in all circumstances.(3) According to the insipid imperative, if there is evening one case in which it is acceptable to lie and honesty can be over ridden, then the perfect status of the duty not to lie is compromised. Kant is most strident in not allowing for even a contactmingly innocent lie, which could save a life kinda of causing harm. He merely asserts that if something terrible happens it is not your fault. The terrible act is something wholly unjustified in the first place.(4)Duty is often be by Kant and his deontological views on lying. Kant tells us that it is never acceptable to lie, and places this on the level ofa moral law, or a categorical imperative. He contends that lies eer harm othersthe individual or society. To be truthful (honest) in all declarations, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency.(5)Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham also would not allow for the Jessup defense of the coverup. Bentham delivered a frothy lecture to Englands judges who were using their power and lying to the people. Bentham sees nothing more abhorrent than using lies and power to furt her ones position.(6)The justification for the behaviors is weak, with hundreds of years of morality, ethics, and laws written in resistor to Jessups rationale.In the particular case of PFC Santiago, Colonel jessup seems to be aggravated by his appeal to the NIS and his breach of confidentiality of his unit. This brings us to the another moral debate. Was Santiago right in his decision to give false information of an illegal fence line shooting? We can make two speculations here. any Santiago lied about the fence line shooting in a desperate attempt to get noticed by the authorities which could get him transferred for the information or he was mistaken about the shooting. This is to record that he did not realized that the mirror had engaged to fire first and Dawsen just retaliated in defence. Santiago can easily be forgiven for the latter.However, in the former case, normatively he should not have done what he did. But that was the only practical thing he could do. Even though w e can easily blame Santiago for lying, we should praise his attempt to break apart from the blind acceptance of the principles which ruled the lives of other marines. Even though Santtiago was physically weaker than the rest of the Platoon he had the mental capacity to fight against the odds of the senseless life in which he was trying to survive. This reminds me of the mahabharatta where Lord Krishna taught the Pandavas that it is good to lie got the fight for the Good. (I know that Kant would not agree with me)In A a few(prenominal) Good Men the debate is one of to whom is the final duty owed andwhere does the law fit into the equation? The soldiers facing court martial display their eventual(prenominal) affiliation firmly?first and foremost their duty is to their marine army corps god and country are secondary to the bond between their comrades and this is the fulcrum of the require are orders to be obeyed at all costs and where does the buck gibe?Professor Alfonso Gomez- Lobo quotes Neither can military ethics properly embody without the concept of ordering. By ordering, I do not mean verbalize subordinates what to do. I refer, instead, to moral structuring and ethical priorities. In the movie A a couple of(prenominal) Good Men, a Marine lance corporal tells his lawyers that the enter is based upon unit, corps, God, country. He has it, of course, all wrong. In fact, many illegal activities or stupid mistakes in the military services are the result of leading failures to order wisely and well.The duty of a marine to follow the orders of a superior officer. The word duty here needs to be explained. It is the duty of the marine to fallow the orders of his superior officer if they are justified or legal. In Cuba however, refuseing an order implies to commit a crime. But since Code red is a practice discouraged by law, it is the duty of the marine to disobey such an order. An officer is always human and to equate him to be the ultimate legal confid ence is to make him invincible. It is this act of deception and blind doctrine that lets the powerful exploit.When an foundation demands complete faith in its principles, the individuals within the institution are dependent on it, strive to maintain it and become unable(predicate) of independent thinking. At times like these the ethical question crops us which is more important? guiding principles of life or humans, code of observe or PFC Santiago.As for the Platoons annoyance on Santiagos betrayal for the unit and selfishness, I dont think it is valid. It would have been a different case had there been some compassion for Santiago within his Unit. His friends beat him up as a part of following orders, to keep up their jobs. From this perspective, they too are selfish. The only difference is that Santiago istowards the receiving end of brutalities, and it is convenient for the rest of the Platoon who were comparably stronger to talk about the loyalty within the unit.Interestingl y, Lieutenant Kendrick too believe in the proper authority of God or his commanding officer Colonel Nathan R JessupHere we see that blind faith is associated with both God and the ColonelMoreover, the Colonel starts associating himself with God who protects and punishes others and expects the respect of all. He thinks that he is the personification of indisputable unquestionable principles.That the colonel lives by the rules and notions of the Marine army corps and doesnt fully comprehend the world outside.Both Dawson and Kaffee are good at what they do. That?s all they have in common. The contrast between the disciplined Dawson and the flippant Kaffee can be traced to their system of beliefs and their environment.Dawson mentions that he conjugated the navy so that he could live by a code. He believes that he did his duty and did it well and was even ready to face its consequences, but not plead guilty. Here we see the romanticized version of the code of honor. He failed to reali ze that the real strength of character lies in his discretion to protect the weak and not train him to protect himself. He lives in the misconceptions where certain principles appearDawson is like a person who wants to be spiritual and associates himself with religious practices no effect what they are which gives him a sense of satisfaction.Kaffee on the other hand has no delusions about the law. His only criterion is to solve his case as soon as possible with the best interest of his lymph node at heart. He believes that a case is not won by the law but the lawyer. He seems to have lost his faith in all legal ethics due to the waylaw is practise around him and he seems to be a part of the system too. Or in the least he has least to live with it.Daniel Kaffee is a smart, flippant, openhanded young Navy lawyer. in his late 20s, 15 months out of Harvard Law School, and a brilliant legal mind waiting for a courageous spirit to drive it. He is, at this point in his life, passionat e about nothing except maybe softball. His father was a renowned jurist, and Dan feels the burden of his fathers reputation. Indeed, his casual, tongue-in-cheek attitude to the law is his way of avoiding comparison with his father. You cant fail if you dont even try. However, he lived in the shadows of his father having no misconceptions regarding different facets of law. He does not believe in a romanticized version of his profession.He did not believe his case to be a winner and first attempts to find an easy way out. Even though he sympathized with the state of his clients who were oblige to carry out their orders, were blinded by the belief in false practices like ?Code Red?, he understood the politics associated with the case. His frustration is revealed when he emphasizes that I think you will lose and it does not matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove..Despite these flaws he proves to be an excellent lawyer. This is because unlike the marines. He has learn t to question authority. He has not been learn by blind principles.the lawyer defending the two marines in A Few Good Men has to consider whether he should go beyond the legal and ethical codes under which he is bound and accuse a witness on the stand of committing a crime for which the two marines are accused. He of course does and justice is done.In conclusion, it is evident that Dawson and Downey performed their duty as was expected of them. On ethical grounds, they would have been better off notifying the grant authorities of the nature of the order and the circumstances in which the order was to be executed. However, as fellowmarines under a commanding officer, they were compelled to follow orders without face into the ethical or moral aspects of their actions. A marine?s discipline is taken very seriously by his commanding officers however, this does not imply that discipline takes priority over the mental and physical health of a marine. Santiago?s heart condition was no s ecret. Despite this fact, he was given the Code Red knowing fully well that he may not be able to take the pressure ? definitely, an wrong decision on the part of the authorities concerned.